CAMERA HAS BEEN SOLD!

I have a used Nikon D7000 body and kit lens that I would like to sell. I have all of the original equipment (strap, charger, cables, etc) I don't think I have any of the original packing. I just checked and it has ~7800 shutter activations so it has quite a bit of life left in it. Camera is in decent shape, I'd give it a 7 out of 10. The kit lens is hardly used so is more like a 9 out of 10.

There are zero known problems with the camera and lens. I'll let the camera and lens go for $400 if anyone is interested. Buyer pays for shipping method of his/her choice. Let me know if you are interested and I'd be happy to give you a phone number so we can chat. I am an avid daily lurker on UHH but seldom post. I have seen some recent complaints of less than scrupulous posts here so I will just put it out there that this is legit.

The reason for the sale is I am going to buy a D7100 and will use the proceeds to do so.

Rick

What is it about photography that attracts so many incredibly ignorant bigoted loonies?? I belong to many different forums with a fairly eclectic mix of personalities and this General Chit-Chat forum really attracts the crazies from both sides. This forum is more entertaining than almost anything, keep up the good work...

All I can say is keep that lunacy out of my government. Holy crap Batman!

I really like the picture, a really nice job. When I first read your post and you mentioned the pole my first thought was "oh no, don't remove that pole" ;-) Very subjective, but for me it does add a significant amount of "balance" to the photo, and the version with the pole removed confirms that for me. I also like the wire. Someone mentioned that it takes them out of the picture. I would say it puts the picture in context. Lightening it might be a good compromise?

I just really like the picture and think most of this is minor enhancement and very subjective as the variety of comments would indicate.

I have not seen it mentioned by the experts so wanted to hear others take on the sky. It is a beautiful sky, and I seem to be drawn to it in the picture. What appears distracting to me though, something again not yet mentioned, is what appears to be a halo affect around the bow of the boats from the third or so boat down the line. I am no expert so was hoping others would comment on this.
1. Is this a nit and not worth bothering with?
2. What in the work flow is causing it? It does not seem to appear in the original.
3. How would you avoid or fix it if needed?

Regards,

Rick

I bought one of these:
http://secure.mm5server.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=WD&Category_Code=FlashPac

A bit pricey, but eminently convenient. You can get them up to .5TB.

Takes just about any card you might use and quickly and easily downloads photos. Just insert the card, dump, and wipe your card clean for the next day. Runs on a battery you can recharge at your convenience when travelling. Small, easy to carry. Has a color viewing screen for easy filtering of keepers. Connect to your PC when you get home and copy.

I have used this reliably for about 4 years on many trips to download 10's of thousands of photos. Customer service is friendly and helpful. I had some technical questions and got to talk to a real live person who was happy to help.

Rick

Oooh, a snapper, heaven forbid. If we can get past the juvenile labelling, the question had to do with post processing. The answer is everyone post processes to some level, whether it is in camera, in some PP standalone software, as a snapper who runs his film through a one hour processsor (how gauche), or a highbrow purist photographer who has an expensive lab massage his film and picture in a darkroom to his liking.

It has been said in this thread that each individual photographer decides what his art is and how far to push processing, but reality is that this limit is really determined by the observer, after all, isn't that why most of us do it?

Digital cameras made today do some level of post processing on the digital data unless you are shooting raw. This applies from the most basic point and shoot to the most complex, expensive dslr or medium format. raw is a straight digital representation of the sensor data, everything else is digitally processed by the camera to some extent, whether it is white balance or saturation or contrast.

Is what the software in your camera does automatically good enough? If not, why is further PP not acceptable? And if you do *any* level of PP outside of the camera as most have admitted to, who decides the limits of acceptability? And then someoned decides that his white balanced, sharpened image is more "photography" than the other guy who decides to touch up his saturation levels - how pretentious.

BTW, I shoot raw and rarely touch up.

Rick

Doh, after posting this I recalled you were shooting a Canon so the Nikon lens is a don't-care for you. But all that I said about the Tokina 11-16 vs. the others is appropriate.

Rick

All of the lenses mentioned here are good lenses but I am surprised I have not seen the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 mentioned here in any of the responses? Granted you are losing on the wide end, and that 10-11 range is not as insignificant as you might think, and you lose a bit of overlap from 16-18, but there are a lot of other advantages with this lens.

The Nikon lens is certainly the best quality, and also the most expensive at ~$850 new. If you have that kind of cash go for it and you cannot miss.

For my money I'd look at the Tokina. I bought a brand new Tokina a couple years ago for $450.00. Of the others mentioned here it has better optical performance on the bench, is faster focusing, and is a better build lens than the others (now if that does not start a firestorm...) I have not done the work to personally prove this out but others have. I do shoot with it a lot and have found all of the claimed advantages. All I will say is check out some of the online reviews for this lens. This faster lens, at f2.8 throughout the focal range, although not as critical for landscape, expands the lens functionality and you may find yourself using it more often than you would think. I also have the Nikon 18-200 but find myself going to the Tokina quite often.

I would consider at least giving this lens a look before you make your decision, and best of luck in that regard.

Rick

Nice shots. Brings back memories of years past.

How is the fishing on the Owens River these days? Back in the 70s and early 80s that was some of the finest brown trout fishing in the US.

You may have driven me to pull out some old pics taken with my trusty Pentax MX slr some 30-35 years ago. Stopping at Brocks Sporting Goods to load up the cricket cage and then off to Five Bridges Rd east and west along the Owens was a very special fishing experience back in the day.

Rick